posted at 5:21 pm on June 28, 2012 by Allahpundit

Says Amanda Carpenter, “If Obamacare was presented as a tax, it would have never passed.” Certainly true; the White House itself was careful to dismiss that argument in its talking points on O-Care in order to make Blue Dog Dems more comfortable with the bill. And yet here we are. By the numbers: 26 million people, 70-75 percent of whom make less than $200,000 a year, are now on the hook for a fat new “tax” thanks to a guy who swore he’d avoid new taxes on the middle class. Be sure to tell an undecided centrist friend before November.

Standing with White House chief of staff Jack Lew and looking at a television in the “Outer Oval” featuring a split screen of four different networks, the president saw graphics on the screens of the first two cable news networks to break the news — CNN and Fox News Channel — announcing, wrongly, that he had lost.

Senior administration officials say the president was calm.

A couple minutes later, White House counsel Kathy Ruemmler came to Outer Oval and gave him two thumbs-up. Ruemmler had gotten the correct information from a White House lawyer at the Supreme Court and from SCOTUSblog.com.

Some righties are arguing this afternoon that this decision was actually a big win for conservatives because we did, after all, carry the day on the Commerce Clause. Don’t get caught up in O-Care being upheld, as catastrophic as that might be, they say. Focus on the fact that the biggest weapon in the left’s constitutional arsenal for regulating the economy is a little smaller now than it was yesterday. Is it really smaller, though? For one thing, there have been “landmark” rulings imposing limits on the Commerce Clause before that never went anywhere precedentially afterward. The Lopez case in 1995 was supposed to herald a new golden age of limited federal power. Ten years later, it was politely distinguished away in the terrible, terrible Raich ruling — and that was without any conservatives on the Court being replaced by liberals in the interim. Beyond that, who cares whether Congress has to use the taxing power instead of the Commerce Clause to impose a mandate? To use the ol’ broccoli example, it’s apparently now unconstitutional for Congress to order you to buy veggies on penalty of paying a fine but it is constitutional for them to impose a “tax” on people who don’t buy veggies. You’re being forced into commerce either way; the distinction’s mainly semantic. As Jacob Sullum, who’s lamented the lameness of “Commerce vs. tax” formalism before, puts it, “We’re not locking you up for disobedience, we’re locking you up for failing to pay the tax on disobedience.” Yay?

The only compelling reason to be happy about the decision, it seems to me, is that by forcing Congress to frame future power grabs as “taxes,” it’ll be harder to pass them. Then again, this case stands for the proposition that Congress doesn’t have to frame them that way; the Court will re-frame the bill for them and uphold it on tax grounds even if the government explicitly and repeatedly denies that what it’s engaged in as taxation. And as for the supposedly valuable Commerce Clause precedent that was set here, I think con law Prof. Douglas Laycock has it right:

Laycock, a constitutional law professor at the University of Virginia, says it was unexpected that the Supreme Court made a distinction between activity and inactivity. But, he says, it’s hard to think of a situation where this will matter much…

What’s more, the fact that the individual mandate has been interpreted as a tax still gives lawmakers plenty of leeway. Congress might not be able to compel all Americans to purchase broccoli under the Commerce Clause. But, Laycock says, Roberts’ ruling has shown a way around this. “If Congress ever does need to mandate purchase of a product or service again,” he notes, “it can impose a tax for failing to buy it.”

Some conservatives seem to agree that the impact will be small. “Holding the mandate exceeds the scope of the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses poses no threat to any other existing federal program or law that was not already in jeopardy,” writes Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University.

Read the opinion and you’ll find that Roberts and the other four conservatives stood by the holding in Raich. If they had tossed that and said it was wrongly decided, that would be a provocative ruling worth celebrating insofar as it might really herald a broad new trend towards limiting Congress’s regulatory power under the Commerce Clause. They didn’t. Not much of a win. And besides: What good is the prospect of future victories if you’re losing on cases as epochal as the ObamaCare decision? It’s like losing the Super Bowl but celebrating afterwards because your defense played well enough to make you think you might win some games next season. Who cares?

Needless to say, if O wins in November and gets to replace one of the conservatives on the Court, the exciting new precedent forbidding mandates under the Commerce Clause likely won’t live to see the end of the decade. Exit quotation via Timothy Carney: “They’ll trample Roberts’ Commerce Clause firewall when the need to. But his tax trick means they may never need to.”

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

Roberts didn’t rewrite it for them. The federal government argued in the lower courts, whose decisions the SC was actually responding to, that it was a tax. Roberts didn’t come up with that on his own. It was what they argued. And, of course, it is a tax, being collected through the IRS.

Rational Thought on June 28, 2012 at 6:31 PM

They only ever argued it was a tax when they were trying to fend off challenges. But then when it came to whether the mandate was constitutional or not suddenly it was no longer a tax. But none of that matters. What the Fluke did congress call it and how did they write this bill? Roberts is the only justice calling this a tax. Why is that?

Well this certainly bullish for KY jelly and Preparation H. Americas kleptocrats have won again.

Congrats citizens you no longer have any individual rights because they have been officially subsumed to the government right to tax you to death. (you are no longer citizen either you are now simply subjects of the states authority.)

Corporations will of course maintain their rights of free speech (otherwise know as bribing politicians) and the right to confiscate your personal property in concert with local (wholely owned) politicians solely to increase tax revenues (thank you Supine Kangaroo Court).

Individuals that have only the right to be taxed, have their assets and property confiscated, provide for illegal immigrants (non-citizens) will now to be forced to enrich insurance companies, BigPharma, the Corporate Hospital machine, and the American Bar Association.

Is it any wonder? Who is actually surprised given that a gaggle of Lawyers has eviscerated the Constitution? Never mind that there is no money left to pay for any of this they’ll just print up some more.

Whatever one’s position, in favor or opposition to the president’s health care law, the SCOTUS decision was what can only be described as the worst of both worlds. The left will no doubt gloat that this decision is some sort of a victory for “fairness.” The Right will no doubt be energized and even more determined to achieve victory at the polls in November in order to repeal the law in its entirety.

Be that as it may for either side. The truth is we all lost something by this decision; just a bit more of our liberty. By the way the court framed it decision, they have in fact empowered government to tax non-behavior. This is not taxing you on your income, not taxing you for a purchase you’ve made. This is not even punishing you for having committed a criminal act. This taxation for not doing something that the government has decided is in your “best interest,” taxation for not participating.

Dangerous indeed. Were does it stop? Are we now no longer even be allowed to tell government that our choice to act or more importantly to not act is none of its business? The court has opened the door to even more intrusion into or private lives. They have in fact said there are to be no limits just so long as such intrusion is couched in terms of our “best interest” and enforced in the form of a tax.

No one in their right mind thinks that government will suddenly say “we’ve gone far enough.” There will always be politicians, from both sides of the aisle, who will seek to corral more and more power and control for government simply because they profit from it or some power group wants a law passed in its “best interest.” The need for which will be reinforced with campaign contributions.

What next? We have too much obesity so we all must participate in some government approved exercise program and if we don’t government will tax you because you didn’t do the prescribed number of push-ups? Or maybe they will tell us that we should eat a certain amount of what the government defines as “healthy” foods. You don’t really have to, but if you don’t, they’re going to monitor your grocery store receipt and tax you for not participating in what they have deemed is our “best interest.”

Perhaps my concern is overblown because there is no money to pay for Obamacare or any other pernicious program that may grow out of it. But have no doubt politicians will continue to expand the excesses of government until it collapses of its own weight. Maybe then we will get something approaching a clean slate and can start again to build anew a system based on individual liberty and personal responsibility rather than the sloth of demanding that government force everyone else to provide for us all those things we have become to lazy to do for ourselves. One where we tell central government to stick to its proper rolls of national defense and foreign relations and little else.

If it were a tax then the Anti-Injunction Act would apply and the Court wouldn’t hear it until taxes were levied and someone filed. The Court, in this very decision, said that it wasn’t a tax .. only to make it a tax later.

————————————–
Page 12 of THIS decision about this alleged “tax”:
The text of the pertinent statutes suggests otherwise.
The Anti-Injunction Act applies to suits “for the purpose
of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax.”
§7421(a) (emphasis added). Congress, however, chose to
describe the “[s]hared responsibility payment” imposed on
those who forgo health insurance not as a “tax,” but as a
“penalty.” §§5000A(b), (g)(2). There is no immediate
reason to think that a statute applying to “any tax” would
apply to a “penalty.”
Congress’s decision to label this exaction a “penalty”
rather than a “tax” is significant because the Affordable
Care Act describes many other exactions it creates as
“taxes.” See Thomas More, 651 F. 3d, at 551. Where
Congress uses certain language in one part of a statute
and different language in another, it is generally pre-
sumed that Congress acts intentionally. See Russello v.
United States, 464 U. S. 16, 23 (1983).
——————————————-

It only became a tax down some pages. This decision was an abomination in all ways.

Obama’s original try for a mandate was unconstitutional so he sent out his soldiers to plead to the SCOTUS that it was a really tax. Never mind that Obama promised that he would never put a tax on the middle class to pay for their health care. How many more lies will it take before even his parasitic constituents recognize him for the deceitful charlatan he really is?

Freedom is gone, here. There’s little difference with the rest of the world, now, except that there’s an insane, third world retard acting like a tyrant in the Executive branch and no one in any position will do anything to stop him. It’s been over 3 years already.

I don’t think it was that bad. Like another poster said, he didn’t go Howard Dean about it and that’s good. He said what he needed to say and reiterated that he’s going to repeal it.

kim roy on June 28, 2012 at 6:28 PM

I thought he could have been a little more angry and forceful.

But, what I really think he needs to do is look into the camera and say:

“America, if you don’t like this bill you’ve got one, and only one, chance to do something about it. November is your only chance, after that you will be stuck with this bill and you’ll never get another chance to get rid of it.”

…a bunch of conservatives whining that Big Daddy Supreme Court justice didn’t come in and save them. What Roberts did here was put the power where it belongs — with the people.

Rational Thought on June 28, 2012 at 6:28 PM

The only duty they have is to interpret whether a law is constitutional. They do not have the power to rewrite legislation to make it constitutional. You understand why we have 3 branches of government right? Checks and Balances. Roberts just made himself an un elected congressmen/lawmaker by changing a penalty into a tax.

So lets say it gets kicked back to the voters and they reelect Obama. Then what?

Kataklysmic on June 28, 2012 at 6:34 PM

I’m sorry, and perhaps you’re in a moment of angst that this decision has brought to us, but that is a really dumb question. If the American people re-elect Barack Obama, then they get the government they deserve. There are many, many reasons to vote against this man beyond health care. Health care, it seems to me, is just the decisive factor needed to push that 25% of undecideds over to the Romney column. If it doesn’t, then a majority of my fellow voters want a Marxist-lite regime. Not much can be done about that. However, there are far more conservatives and center-right independents in this country than there are wacko leftists like Barack. They need to vote. If they do, he’ll lose in a landslide.

Because the old words are as true today as they were then, “Eventually you run out of other people’s money.”

Let them scheme and enact and crush the economy, we will catch up to Europe eventually and then the balloon goes up. Yeah it sucks but it seems there are a majority of Americans who need to be lit on fire to know that flame really does burn.

Bishop on June 28, 2012 at 6:30 PM

I have nowhere near the confidence you do that our side would win the chaos, post-balloon. At best for us, fifty-fifty, and given the outcome that’s not a coin I’m eager to flip.

How would it be possible to determine if an American is or is not insured? Easy.

The IRS will likely turn over the SSN’s of all living Americans to the remaining private health insurers and force them to “match”. If there is no “match” here comes the IRS and your fines.

The implications of this are limitless.

Key West Reader on June 28, 2012 at 6:42 PM

Obamacare means that HHS has access to all your bank accounts, credit card accounts, trading accounts, retirement accounts, and of course, health records. That data and access will be shared with the IRS.

This “crony capitalist” thing is wearing mighty thin…but there really is no such thing…just plain ol’ everyday capitalists who will do whatever they can to turn a nickel into a dime, and if they can get the government to help them, then so what?

The lines between government and commerce are becoming increasingly blurred, and more and more both are working against the interests of the American people.

I’m sorry, and perhaps you’re in a moment of angst that this decision has brought to us, but that is a really dumb question. If the American people re-elect Barack Obama, then they get the government they deserve.

Rational Thought on June 28, 2012 at 6:41 PM

Right. Which means you and I suffer along with them. You good with that?

How would it be possible to determine if an American is or is not insured? Easy.

The IRS will likely turn over the SSN’s of all living Americans to the remaining private health insurers and force them to “match”. If there is no “match” here comes the IRS and your fines.

The implications of this are limitless.

Key West Reader on June 28, 2012 at 6:42 PM
Obamacare means that HHS has access to all your bank accounts, credit card accounts, trading accounts, retirement accounts, and of course, health records. That data and access will be shared with the IRS.

slickwillie2001 on June 28, 2012 at 6:45 PM | Delete | Delete and Ban

You are exactly right. That is another component of the “bill”.

So let’s comingle your bank and your doctor and the IRS and your so-called private health policy all into one tight little ball that makes sure you are in compliance.

The implications of this decision are life altering and I am frankly stunned.

2002
Mitt Romney runs as a Democrat though he uses the Republican Ticket as he moved from Conservative Utah too late to run in the Democratic Primary. He makes clear he hates Republicans and is the more liberal candidate for Governor. This in the most liberal of the lower 48 States. A major platform was Romney Care promising and getting Teddy Kennedys for this.

2004
Mitt Romney signs Romney Care into law. He praises the individual mandate and Kennedy praises Romney. Makes it clear Romney is the best Democratic Governor in the US.

2005
Mitt Romney decides he can further abuse the Republican Ticked and run for President on that ticket he so recently repudiated. He writes a boot touting how wonderful it would be to have Romney Care nationwide.

Mitt Romney secures Gay Marriage by abusing the Mass Constitution forcing clerks to issue marriage licenses to Gays, after the Legislator failed to make Gay Marriage legal. Proving Mitt Romney is more liberal than the Mass Legislator.

2009
Obama Care becomes law in large part because Romney supported it in Opt Eds and on TV. Some Democrats saw it as bipartisan because of Romney.

2010
The Conservatives vote Democrats out of power in the House over Obama Care. Romney continues to praise it (Romney Care). Says only problem with Obama Care is Constitution. (He was wrong).

2012
Today Romney made it clear he supports all the fundamentals of Obama Care while promising to repeal it and replace it with almost the same thing possibly a more radical version even.

Obamacare means that HHS has access to all your bank accounts, credit card accounts, trading accounts, retirement accounts, and of course, health records. That data and access will be shared with the IRS.

slickwillie2001 on June 28, 2012 at 6:45 PM

The IRS already knows most of the above with the new 1099 rules that have gone and will go into effect for 2012 Form 1040. The only things that missing are the health records.

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”

Reader Stuart Buck provides more detail as to why the dissent reads like a majority opinion:

1. The dissent has a whole section on severability that is completely beside the point except on the assumption that the mandate had been struck down, and now “We” have to decide whether and what to preserve of the rest of the act now that the mandate is gone.

2. Notice also that his response to Roberts is tacked on at the end, rather than worked into the body of whatever he was writing (see page 64 of his dissent). For example, one would have expected Scalia to directly take on Roberts’ application of the Anti-Injunction Act, but his brief section on that act only mentions what “the Government” argues (see pages 26-28).

3. On top of that, Scalia’s sections on the Commerce Clause and the Medicaid Expansion are just as long or longer than what Roberts writes (Scalia wrote 16 pages on the Commerce Clause and 21 pages on the Medicaid Expansion, compared to Roberts’ 16 pages and 14 pages respectively). Yet Scalia never writes in the vein of saying, “I agree with the Chief Justice’s opinion, but write to add a crucial discussion of some complexity.” His analysis agrees with Roberts, and makes essentially the same points in “We” language. There’s no reason for Scalia to do this at such length, unless his opinion is what came first.

UPDATE: Ed Whelan notes a related theory: Roberts assigned the opinion to himself, and wrote most of what became the four-Justice dissent. He then switched on the tax issue, and the four dissenters adopted most of his original majority opinion as a dissent. This would explain why the dissent is unsigned.

“It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

THIS is what I have taken away from reading the write up of the SCOTUS decision thus far.

We can survive an Obama, a Reid, a Pelosi (heck, we can survive all three at the same time).

What we cannot survive is a population of low information, ignorant, selfish, recist, jealous (I have more words but do not wish to feel the breeze of the banhammer) voters who actually give these . . . things . . . the power to make laws (or disregard them if they so desire).

If we can muster enough votes to put conservatives in power and then keep them honest, so be it. If not, then find a way to provide for your own family, help your friends and others who share your moral/spiritual/whatever beliefs, and ensure that anyone who threatens that life does not survive to threaten it again.

Reminds me of when I was finally cornered into giving up info for the Census. The second guy badgered me and badgered me even though I told him I was busy and didn’t have time. Lib neighbor couldn’t figure out what my ‘problem’ was (I just wanted to supply how many, ages, genders and that’s it…now what I do, how much I make and so on). Finally gave into the harassment from their offices in Atlanta or wherever they were.

That’s the thing…there will always be a plentiful supply of people who will enforce whatever they’re paid/told to do (“Hey, buddy, just doing my job!”).

UPDATE: Ed Whelan notes a related theory: Roberts assigned the opinion to himself, and wrote most of what became the four-Justice dissent. He then switched on the tax issue, and the four dissenters adopted most of his original majority opinion as a dissent. This would explain why the dissent is unsigned.

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”

Samuel Adams

Resist We Much on June 28, 2012 at 6:52 PM

Amen!

As much as I would like to call or email my lib friends to tell them they and their children are in the same boat now as we conservatives, I just haven’t got the emotional strength to do it right now.

They put party above freedom in 2008. Now their loyalty to the Dems has come back around to choke them.

No that’s not what happened. Why do you think people are upset. Roberts said the mandate could be construed as a tax.

It’s clear that it was meant to be a penalty, and there were IRS agents that were to be hired to cover collecting the penalty- enforce the Individual Mandate. The IRS is still going to collect the tax from tax payers if they don’t prove they have health insurance.

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”

Samuel Adams

Resist We Much on June 28, 2012 at 6:52 PM

Well, if the chains have the word freebie engraved on them, most idiots think its an advantage.

Hey, these shackles are free, dude!

If the government can make them look superficially like hospital name tags, so much the cooler.

The Court, in City of New York v. Feiring, 313 U.S. 283 (1941), established a test to be utilised in making the determination of whether an assessment is a tax or a penalty has been described as a four-part test incorporating the following criteria:

(3) for public purposes, including the purposes of defraying expenses of government or undertakings authorised by it; and,

(4) under the police or taxing power of the state.

The individual mandate is NOT a tax. How can Roberts argue that paying premiums to private corporations or punitive fines for failing to do something is the equivalent of the argument that the FDR administration relied upon (Taxing and Spending powers) when it argued for the constitutionality of Social Security? In Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), the Court said that Congress had the authority to tax income to provide for Social

Security BECAUSE IT WAS A TAX PAID TO THE GOVERNMENT. Blue Cross/Blue Shield is not an arm of the Federal government; thus, paying premiums to it CANNOT be viewed as a form of taxation in any sane interpretation of the law…unless one is reading from Mussolini’s The Doctrine of Fascism.

How sad to be an American today! I’ve torn the collar on John Roberts … henceforth to be known as Shrub’s Warren.

UPDATE: Ed Whelan notes a related theory: Roberts assigned the opinion to himself, and wrote most of what became the four-Justice dissent. He then switched on the tax issue, and the four dissenters adopted most of his original majority opinion as a dissent. This would explain why the dissent is unsigned.

Right. Which means you and I suffer along with them. You good with that?

Kataklysmic on June 28, 2012 at 6:48 PM

No. I am often not “good with” how a majority of my fellow citizens vote. So what? That’s how they voted. I do my part in the citizen political arena to make things go my way as much as I can. If we all do — all conservatives — we’ll win every time. Every. Single. Time. Unfortunately, too many on our side choose to stay home or cast protest votes that hand elections to the commies. Nothing I can do about that. That’s on them. I’ll not take responsibility for it.

I understand and agree with what you are saying. I just don’t know why you’re taking an issue with conservatives who are disappointed in this ruling. We have been sitting here powerless, suffering under this Marxist dictator for the last three and half years and we can’t have one g*dd*mn day to vent about it when a conservative justice is the deciding vote to uphold Obama’s largest powergrab?

But, what I really think he needs to do is look into the camera and say:

“America, if you don’t like this bill you’ve got one, and only one, chance to do something about it. November is your only chance, after that you will be stuck with this bill and you’ll never get another chance to get rid of it.”

He has to make this crystal clear.

JohnInCA on June 28, 2012 at 6:37 PM

Yeah, but that’s not really him, is it? *sigh*

Here we are with a sh!t sandwich today and a RINO running, but what can we do with it? Give up or double up our efforts?

I understand and agree with what you are saying. I just don’t know why you’re taking an issue with conservatives who are disappointed in this ruling. We have been sitting here powerless, suffering under this Marxist dictator for the last three and half years and we can’t have one g*dd*mn day to vent about it when a conservative justice is the deciding vote to uphold Obama’s largest powergrab?

Nine hours later, I still feel the same way. SCOTUS dumped this back on Congress, which I think is the last thing in the world that Dems in Congress (or the WH) wanted. Many Dems in Congress had their careers terminated in 2010 because of this bill. Now it’s time to make the Dem Senators who are up for reelection pay the same price.

Kim, I’ve haven’t fallen off the horse. I am voting for the person on the ballot most likely to unseat Obama this November whether it’s Mitt or whether it’s Charles Manson. What this ruling today did is make me stop and reflect on how much we can hope to actually accomplish if we win. Let’s say we get Romney in and get 60 votes in the senate and keep the house and all that. Let’s say they then buck their own histories and govern as conservatives. Then down the line one of our scotus picks decides he’d rather be a hero to the MSM than protect our liberties and hands down another landmark b*tchslap like what he got today. All our efforts and votes and hopes and dreams for naught? Looks that way to me.

But yeah, I’m assuming I’ll be less Eeyorish tomorrow (hopefully). The bottom line is I would have accepted this a little better if it had been 5-4 with Kennedy as the deciding vote. The fact that it was Roberts signaled to me that we are in a much more precarious position with scotus than I previously presumed. And that is cause for at least a full day of Eeyorishness ;)

Ick. I cannot even watch the President anymore on video, I will have to rely on others to give me a synopsis. He LIED about it being a Tax. He lied at the State of the Union (You lie!) He seems to have lied to his own autobiography.

And I was truly shocked to see that the penalty tax/ while starting out at a meager one percent of some kind of income, rapidly seems to put a surcharge on your taxes if you don’t buy THEIR health care.

Kim, I’ve haven’t fallen off the horse. I am voting for the person on the ballot most likely to unseat Obama this November whether it’s Mitt or whether it’s Charles Manson. What this ruling today did is make me stop and reflect on how much we can hope to actually accomplish if we win. Let’s say we get Romney in and get 60 votes in the senate and keep the house and all that. Let’s say they then buck their own histories and govern as conservatives. Then down the line one of our scotus picks decides he’d rather be a hero to the MSM than protect our liberties and hands down another landmark b*tchslap like what he got today. All our efforts and votes and hopes and dreams for naught? Looks that way to me.

Kataklysmic on June 28, 2012 at 7:34 PM

Good. I’ve always enjoyed the pragmatic-ness of your comments and trains of thought.

All this means is that we have to remain diligent and always hedge our bets. There’s never a guarantee. For all intents, Roberts was a conservative and it’s mind boggling that he moved away from that and we may never know what happened.

Some will call me delusional, but I’m going to look at this as a gift. A gift of bringing conservatives together and giving greater clarity to what needs to be done. Giving us a hammer to pound on the liberals – TAX TAX TAX.

The only choice is to continue the fight or give up and I’m unwilling to concede to the liberals, even though it might be a futile endeavor.

But. We don’t know that and as you state our efforts may be for naught; that may be so, but if we give up then we know they will win for sure. :)

But yeah, I’m assuming I’ll be less Eeyorish tomorrow (hopefully). The bottom line is I would have accepted this a little better if it had been 5-4 with Kennedy as the deciding vote. The fact that it was Roberts signaled to me that we are in a much more precarious position with scotus than I previously presumed. And that is cause for at least a full day of Eeyorishness ;)